About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
was peppered with questions ons petraeus scandal and the benghazi investigation and what u.n. ambassador susan rice knew when she went on the talk shows five days after the attack on the consulate. eamon javers joins us with that part of the story. >> it was president barack obama's first opportunity to talk about the david petraeus sex scandal that has rocked washington over the past several days with new details emerging seemingly every single day. but the president today told reporters that the damage from this scandal so far, anyway, has been relatively limited. >> i have no evidence at this point from what i've seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security. obviously, there's an ongoing investigation. i don't want to comment on the specifics of the investigation. >> and the president got a little bit heated today when he was talking about u.n. ambassador susan rice. he said that senators on the republican side who want to go after susan rice, they ought to come after president obama instead. >> for them to go after
the agency threw a lifeline, if you will, to embattled obama u.n. ambassador susan rice, corroborating ambassador rice's account of what she knew and when she knew it, even though we know now that what she was told and what she repeated was wrong about benghazi. libya remains highly political, partisan and even personal. libya's become a battle between president obama and republican senator ginnie mae who insisted again today the administration knew quickly that al qaeda had attacked. >> and for the president of the united states for two weeks afterwards to deny that that was the case is either a cover-up or it is incompetence. >> reporter: obama u.n. ambassador susan rice denied it, infuriating republicans. mike morrell on the hill today briefed some lawmakers on libya. one, a democrat said the account backed rice, that u.s. intelligence did give her the incorrect account that she passed on. >> this was a spontaneous protest that evolved into something militant, that was the best information they said they had at the time. >> reporter: there had been earlier attacks in benghazi, a war
organizations here in washington, the word al qaeda got changed to "extremists." and when the points got to u.n. ambassador susan rice, she made no mention of al qaeda or extremists when she went on nbc's "meet the press" five days after the attack. rice did tout the anti-terrorist accomplishments of president obama. pet rae ugs denies any political pressure on the cia to scrub al qaeda from its talking points. new york republican peter king said today, "we need to find out who did the scrubbing and why." larry, back to you. >> many thanks, steve handelsman, appreciate it. so why has general petraeus done a 180 on benghazi? this is a very serious issue. first he blames the attack on a video. now he's saying it was a terrorist attack and the briefing notes were changed. something doesn't add up. here now is michael rubin, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, and alexis levinson, reporter at the daily quarter. michael, i'll go to you first. peter king himself today, i guess i'll quote this, he said that the testimony petraeus gave today, that they knew immediately it was a terro
't already in enough hot water over the benghazi mess, there's a just breaking report out tonight u.n. ambassador susan rice has heavy jeismts in energy companies known for doing business with iran. and that is illegal. first up, breaking news on the fiscal cliff front tonight, president obama offered his opening bid in budget talks with republicans, and we have eamon javers with all the details. good even, eamon. >> house republican aides are saying this was a new offer from temperature think geithner on capitol hill for a long series of meegts. there were varying report of whether or not he had made a specific new offer. in fact harry reid told me that he hadn't made a specific new offer. that said, republican sources are laying out the offer they say they got from the white house today. take a look at some of the specifics. you'll see what's prompting the reaction earp just talking about. they say what the white house is offering is 1.6 trillion in tax increases up front, to continue the payroll tax credit or a similar policy, what they call a permanent increase in the debt limits,
focused on yield. we have an the u.n. weight to equities. most of the equity exposure right now is outside of america. that's been a good thing for us since july and then we have an overweight to extend fixed economic and credit. looking at emerging market debt. watching carefully and still happy to own high yield debt and mortgage-backed securities. >> this is a serious question. we had peter fisher on the show, former undersecretary who said, you know, they just might do the right thing. either online or got your "wall street journal" in hand. what if they do the right thing. jeremy segal says stocks are going to 15,000 and 17,000. is that seriously possible? >> look, you have very little liquidity at year end, right, so there's in the a lot of volume in the markets so things can move much more. it's exaggerated. if we get a credible bipartisan deal december 15th you're going to have a huge relief rally into year end. >> 15,000, mr. baldwin? >> not right away. stocks are slightly overpriced. like them for 40 years, not sure about four months. >> good stuff. rebecca patterson and william
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)